As well as 8x10 (late audience serie, I'm sure, maybe 'new pictures from paradise' too) and even a 4x5 Technikardan... Whatever, he seems the least digital inclined of the 3 to me, and I'd be glad to see some works if he did.

His assistant was checking fresh work negatives on the light desk besides me at my lab where I was checking my negs. We had a little chat about group ordering 5x7 color neg film.13x18cm is "the" old German professional format, most of the guys coming out of photography schools and art academies in the late 80s and the beginning of the 90s started their career shooting it. So if this is part of your process it will be important. And if the process is part of what you sell to your customers at the gallery, it is important.But in the end it, only the impact of your work counts.

A quite nice laid back commercial I think. The audience obviously landscape photography amateurs, and I'd guess that it's a quite important market for medium format and may become even more so. For entry level systems you don't need to be extremely wealthy so the market is quite large. I think they (Phase One) are a bit too focused on their own camera system. It would be interesting to know in detail but I think what (amateur) landscape photographers that look to medium format generally wants is a tech camera. Something really different. I would myself never invested in MF for my landscape photography if I had to shoot with a 645DF+.... it's boooooring! And if you really want the "best lenses" for landscape you go tech cam.

I'd also focus more on superior resolution rather than on that old slogan of 16 bit color and superior DR which everyone knows is not true.

Speaking about amateurs. A few months ago I got asked by a pro photographer for tips of a tech cam. He asked around among many, and noted that he did not actually find many pro users at all, but rather amateurs with well-paid jobs and a passionate interest in photography. I guess it depends a bit on which channels you use when asking, but I think amateurs are becoming a more important income source for medium format companies and they've just discovered that fact.

I also noted the other day that my favourite tech cam gear company Linhof Studio in UK updated their web with a new slogan which is "in our world everyone is a professional", which surely indicates that a large part of their customers are actually amateurs these days.

Hopefully digital back manufacturers will respond to this better than they do now and realize that the potential for growth is very large if they just make a bit cheaper digital backs...

Regarding the lenses, Anders (Torger) may have a point. I have five of the original Hasselblad lenses and some are really good, some have issues.

But, lens issues notwithstanding, my Hasselblad V series + P45+ back gives superior sharpness to my Sony cameras. I would say that resolution and edge sharpness where MF wins. DR and the other stuff? I think the MFD people have some homework to do. Well, it is quite possible that some of that homework is done on the IQ backs.

But, lens issues notwithstanding, my Hasselblad V series + P45+ back gives superior sharpness to my Sony cameras. I would say that resolution and edge sharpness where MF wins. DR and the other stuff? I think the MFD people have some homework to do. Well, it is quite possible that some of that homework is done on the IQ backs.

I think it's remarkable how well a P45+ holds up in photographically-useful Dynamic Range compared to the best current dSLRs given that the sensor in the P45+ is from 2005.

And I still think you're missing out by not using Capture One to process your P45+ files. But I know and respect how carefully/thoroughly you've made your evaluation in that regard.

One day I hope you make it to NYC and we can play around with current medium format digital.

Speaking about amateurs. A few months ago I got asked by a pro photographer for tips of a tech cam. He asked around among many, and noted that he did not actually find many pro users at all, but rather amateurs with well-paid jobs and a passionate interest in photography. I guess it depends a bit on which channels you use when asking, but I think amateurs are becoming a more important income source for medium format companies and they've just discovered that fact.

I also noted the other day that my favourite tech cam gear company Linhof Studio in UK updated their web with a new slogan which is "in our world everyone is a professional", which surely indicates that a large part of their customers are actually amateurs these days.

Hopefully digital back manufacturers will respond to this better than they do now and realize that the potential for growth is very large if they just make a bit cheaper digital backs...

Hi, I am a working pro photographer (for the past ten years) and I have used all kinds of cameras. I generally use and keep what is best for my work and don't get attached emotionally too much to the gear. For me they are tools to make the images I want and need to make (or my clients).

I mostly use the technical camera rig for my personal landscape work BUT I have used it in just few commercial shoots and the results have been superb. But working with a tech camera is slower obviously and if I think that my service will be affected (after all commercial photography is all about servicing the client) because of it then I do not use it. That is why my main kit is a DSLR. I also have a H1 which allows me to work much faster with the back. I have started to include it in a lot of my shoots whenever I can although I only have one lens for it (80mm) so it is somewhat limiting. Point is that I have several options and each has it's place in my toolbox.

In pure image quality terms the tech camera setup is just unbeatable. But, Technical Image Quality is not the only consideration when giving a photography service, it is one of several factors. In some shoots it is way more important working swiftly and getting the images the client wants. It can be because access to the location is limited or the client's or talent's time is limited etc.etc. Of course a certain quality standard needs to be maintained and in a lot of cases the DSLR have good enough image quality for the job. One thing is certain, no matter the camera I use I always strive to make the best of it and just get the best quality out of it I can. Nowadays there are so many great alternatives it is amazing!

True there are no really affordable (new) MFDB's but the Pentax 645D is a great option and not too expensive (when you factor in that it includes a camera body and used lenses can be had for little money BUT the service is questionable) and of course there are MANY used PhaseOne backs out there at great prices and even the older P40+/P45+ can be purchased new at good prices (for a MFDB) and a system can be assembled at a great price too if you look around. The good thing is that most PhaseOne backs are still serviced I believe and they are rock solid. Even so the MFDBs are a premium product and they are happy with their current business model I guess. Sure, a $5,000 (new) MFDB will increase their customer base immensely and tie much more customers to their camera and lens system but with products like the Nikon D800E and the Sony A7R even that is getting harder and harder to do.

I miss FredBG. Sometimes I was irritated by his way, but I would suggest that he had a of of good points. Also, he has been there and done that. I have since invested a bit in MFD, around 15 kUSD (Hasselblad 555ELD + P45+ + five lenses and some more stuff), and I do pretty much share his opinion/experience. I like MFD, no question about it, but I have a lot of reservations on image quality, color rendition, focusing, dynamic range.

I used to shoot Sony Alpha and the main advantage I see with MFD is resolution. Image quality? I don't know! Color? Pretty much a question of taste! DR? The Sony trounces my P45+. They are pretty similar in DxO but real world images, the Sony wins. I have also a lot of color aliasing problems. Funny no one discusses that, but I had quite a few shots spoiled aliasing. OK, if you shoot f/16 - f/32 you will not see it, but careful work at f/8, you see it on quite a few images,

So why do I keep my P45+/Hassy? There is the resolution advantage, even if you need to print 70x100 cm to see. Nice to work with classic equipment.

The Hasselblad lenses are quite nice, even if the Distagon 40/4 and the Planar 120/4 have issue with field curvature in many cases. Right now I like the P45+ / Hassy combination, but it is not an all sunny relationship. The Sonnar 150/4 and the Distagon 50/4 really shine! As a side note, there are a few Zeiss lenses of modern constructions, like the Distagon 40/4 FLE IF and the Planar 100/3.5 that really shine. Unfortunately I have neither, but both may be on the shopping list

Hard to say. Sony is 24MP and Hasselblad is 39 MP. I have expected a difference. The difference is significant on screen, but I am not sure it is clear in prints. I have compared prints in A1 size from both, and I would say they are not easy to tell apart, unless you look for known clues. But even with known clues you need to look hard, in A1-size.

There is 36MP FF135 from Nikon, Leica and Sony right now and some excellent lenses. The comparisons I have done was MFD with Zeiss primes against Sony 24MPO with zooms. Primes offer better quality but zooms offer a perfect crop.

Lenses are getting better and better ... computer modeled, aspherical, extreme glass sorts and so on.In the end the smaller the format the more perfect the lens has to be to match, and all that within the limits of physics.Zeiss is showing with their Otus lenses what is possible within FF - but they also take a (justified imo) high price.The good thing for us could be, that the MP race is fading out and a new race on the lens side will start the higher the resolution on the FF and smaller sensors becomes.The result will be less bulk for more quality.

I miss FredBG. Sometimes I was irritated by his way, but I would suggest that he had a of of good points. Also, he has been there and done that. I have since invested a bit in MFD, around 15 kUSD (Hasselblad 555ELD + P45+ + five lenses and some more stuff), and I do pretty much share his opinion/experience. I like MFD, no question about it, but I have a lot of reservations on image quality, color rendition, focusing, dynamic range.

I used to shoot Sony Alpha and the main advantage I see with MFD is resolution. Image quality? I don't know! Color? Pretty much a question of taste! DR? The Sony trounces my P45+. They are pretty similar in DxO but real world images, the Sony wins. I have also a lot of color aliasing problems. Funny no one discusses that, but I had quite a few shots spoiled aliasing. OK, if you shoot f/16 - f/32 you will not see it, but careful work at f/8, you see it on quite a few images,

So why do I keep my P45+/Hassy? There is the resolution advantage, even if you need to print 70x100 cm to see. Nice to work with classic equipment.

The Hasselblad lenses are quite nice, even if the Distagon 40/4 and the Planar 120/4 have issue with field curvature in many cases. Right now I like the P45+ / Hassy combination, but it is not an all sunny relationship. The Sonnar 150/4 and the Distagon 50/4 really shine! As a side note, there are a few Zeiss lenses of modern constructions, like the Distagon 40/4 FLE IF and the Planar 100/3.5 that really shine. Unfortunately I have neither, but both may be on the shopping list

Best regardsErik

Fred shot portraits and mostly B&W portraits at that from what I saw. He talked about MFDBs from his perspective obviously and honestly for that type of work there are plenty of options and its a very personal choice.

Also, the latest 60 and 80mp backs are the ones that offer a clear cut advantage over any DSLR in many aspects of image quality that show in print since the DSLRs have been improved and optimized quite a bit specially the latest Nikon and Sony cameras. It takes a lot of "horsepower" to beat those DSLRs. Obviously there are some image characteristics intrinsic of the large sensor like different depth of field that are always present in medium format no matter the resolution. Also some medium format systems have leaf shutters that allow flash sync at all speeds and technical cameras that allow many movements to control focus and composition precisely.

Those are all good points. The P45+ I bought was introduced on the market 2007, I think, but it is still highly regarded. There has been a significant development in MFD the years since 2007, both more pixels and increase in DR. A technical camera with the best lenses and one of the newer backs is probably a combination hard to beat.

Fred shot portraits and mostly B&W portraits at that from what I saw. He talked about MFDBs from his perspective obviously and honestly for that type of work there are plenty of options and its a very personal choice.

Also, the latest 60 and 80mp backs are the ones that offer a clear cut advantage over any DSLR in many aspects of image quality that show in print since the DSLRs have been improved and optimized quite a bit specially the latest Nikon and Sony cameras. It takes a lot of "horsepower" to beat those DSLRs. Obviously there are some image characteristics intrinsic of the large sensor like different depth of field that are always present in medium format no matter the resolution. Also some medium format systems have leaf shutters that allow flash sync at all speeds and technical cameras that allow many movements to control focus and composition precisely.

True there are no really affordable (new) MFDB's but the Pentax 645D is a great option and not too expensive (when you factor in that it includes a camera body and used lenses can be had for little money BUT the service is questionable) and of course there are MANY used PhaseOne backs out there at great prices and even the older P40+/P45+ can be purchased new at good prices (for a MFDB) and a system can be assembled at a great price too if you look around. The good thing is that most PhaseOne backs are still serviced I believe and they are rock solid. Even so the MFDBs are a premium product and they are happy with their current business model I guess. Sure, a $5,000 (new) MFDB will increase their customer base immensely and tie much more customers to their camera and lens system but with products like the Nikon D800E and the Sony A7R even that is getting harder and harder to do.

I don't think it would be so hard to do. For the amateur I think a tech camera has the attraction of the same type as a Harley Davidsson motor cycle, ie it's only partly about features and performance, mostly is that it's way different from mainstream products. Despite that it's very cumbersome to work with film there are quite a few amateurs shooting large format film, and I'm sure the group interested in tech cam digital is much much larger than that. The MF segment is so small that extending it with another small customer segment still means a big expansion. I don't think they need to drop down to $5,000 to get a significant increase. $8,000 for a 48x36mm ~50 megapixel back in modern packaging with nice tech cam marketing and bundles would reach out to many more. Even if image quality won't be the sole purpose people will want to have some distance to DSLR performance. You can already today buy a new MFDB for $8000 (Leaf Aptus-II), but it's only 22 megapixel, it's not competitive enough to be attractive at that price level. 50-60 megapixels is the right level today I think, and those backs are way too expensive to buy new.

Sure you can already build fine system on second hand gear, I've done that, but it requires some patience and risk taking, which not all are prepared to make. That so many still do shows that there's a desire for these systems at lower cost.

Pentax 645D is indeed a cheap(ish) camera, it's in the same price range as a Canon 1DX. However it does not have that attraction like a tech cam and detachable back has. It's just a DSLR with a little bit larger sensor.

The hardest part for the MF companies on doing this type of stunt is risk taking and that their sales (and support) model is only capable for loooow bandwidth. So their stuck in their current model, and it does seem to work for at least Phase One. Hasselblad seems to struggle a bit more... but I think this would be ideal for a joint venture of Sinar, Linhof, Cambo, Arca-Swiss, Alpa and Silvestri -- make a back that makes them sell more cameras.